Hat Is the Cause in the Decline of Beef Production in the Western Part of the United States?
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018 Jul; 31(7): 1007–1016.
Current situation and time to come trends for beef production in the United states — A review
James Southward. Drouillard
1Department of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State Academy, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
Received 2016 Jun 8; Accustomed 2018 Jun viii.
Abstruse
USA beefiness production is characterized by a multifariousness of climates, environmental conditions, animate being phenotypes, management systems, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. The U.s.a. beef herd consists of more than 80 breeds of cattle and crosses thereof, and the industry is divided into singled-out, but ofttimes overlapping sectors, including seedstock production, cow-dogie production, stocker/backgrounding, and feedlot. Exception for male dairy calves, production is predominantly pastoral-based, with young stock spending relatively cursory portions of their life in feedlots. The beef manufacture is very engineering driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, focusing on improvements in efficiency and cost of production. Young steers and heifers are grain-based diets fed for an average of 5 months, generally in feedlots of one,000 head capacity or more, and typically are slaughtered at 15 to 28 months of age to produce tender, well-marbled beef. Per capita beefiness consumption is most 26 kg annually, over half of which is consumed in the course of ground products. Beefiness exports, which are increasingly important, consist primarily of high value cuts and diversity meats, depending on destination. In recent years, agin climatic atmospheric condition (i.eastward., draught), a shrinking agronomical workforce, emergence of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, brute welfare/well-being, environmental impact, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beefiness, consumer perceptions of food brute production practices, and alternative uses of traditional feed grains take get increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beefiness production and need for beefiness products. Similarly, changing consumer demographics and globalization of beefiness markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded by consumers of Us beef, both domestically and abroad. The manufacture is highly adaptive, all the same, and responds quickly to evolving economic signals.
Keywords: Beef, Production Systems, Growth Promotion, Carcass Quality
INTRODUCTION
Beef production systems in the United States are characterized by a wide range of climates, ecology conditions, animal phenotypes, management practices, and a multiplicity of nutritional inputs. In contrast to international perceptions, USA production systems are, with the notable exception of male dairy calves, predominantly pastoral-based, with immature stock typically spending relatively cursory portions of their life in confinement facilities for finishing on high-concentrate diets. Beefiness product at the cow-calf level is widely distributed, and exists in all fifty states, spanning the range from tropical savannah to Arctic tundra, temperate plains, and mountain pastures. Vast differences in geographies and climatic weather necessitate the use of a broad spectrum of animate being phenotypes that are suited to these environments, encompassing both Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds and crosses thereof. The feedlot phase of production, which unremarkably is between 100 and 300 days duration, is heavily concentrated inside the interior of the continental Usa, and relies heavily on cereal grains and grain byproducts produced within this area as predominant feed resources, and feedlot cattle virtually commonly are marketed at ages ranging from 15 to 28 months. Product of beef in the U.S. historically has been very applied science driven, utilizing reproductive management strategies, genetic improvement technologies, exogenous growth promoting compounds, vaccines, antibiotics, and feed processing strategies, all of which focused on improving efficiency and(or) decreasing price of beef product. In more recent years, adverse climatic conditions (i.e., draught), a shrinking agricultural workforce, control of food-borne pathogens, concerns over development of antimicrobial resistance, brute welfare, beast well-beingness, environmental touch on of confinement feeding operations, consumer perceptions of healthfulness of beef, consumer perceptions of food fauna production practices, and alternative uses for traditional feed grains accept become increasingly important with respect to their impact on both beef production and demand for beef products. Similarly, irresolute consumer demographics and globalization of beef markets take dictated changes in the types of products demanded from producers of U.S. beef. Beef production systems are thus increasingly dynamic in their nature, and poised to exploit new market place opportunities by altering product practices to meet changing consumer demands.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.South. Cow-Dogie OPERATIONS AND FEEDLOTS
Equally of Jan 31, 2018, total U.s. inventory of beefiness cows was estimated at 31.seven one thousand thousand head, with cow-calf operations in all fifty states [1]. The beef cow inventory fluctuates considerably from year to year, as shown in Figure 1, and can be influenced heavily past marketplace weather and environmental factors, such as persistent draught conditions. In the Usa, nigh 320 million hectares are used for livestock grazing [2], which is equivalent to 41% of the total state area of the continental United states. Approximately 55% of all beef cows are maintained in the Central region of the continental USA [3], which is characterized by vast native grasslands and expansive production of row crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, grain sorghum, and other crops. Roughly 20% of the national herd is in the Western region, commonly utilizing expansive state areas that are federally owned and leased to beef producers by government agencies. The Southeastern region, often typified by smaller production units that rely heavily on improved pastures, as well is habitation to approximately xx% of the national herd. The remaining v% are interspersed throughout the Northeast, Alaska, and Hawaii. Each of these regions makes use of very different systems of beefiness production, owing to a divergent range of climates and feed resources in each area. For instance, western herds frequently employ federal lands for grazing in the bound and summertime, and cattle so are removed from federal lands and overwintered on privately-owned pastures and/or fed harvested forages until the beginning of the next grazing cycle. By contrast, operations in the Central region oftentimes make use of a mixture of native grass pastures, crop residues, harvested forages, and protein concentrates to sustain their moo-cow herds.
US beef moo-cow inventory on January one, from 1938 to 2018. Source: United States Department of Agriculture [1].
Feedlots, different cow-calf operations, are far more full-bodied geographically, with over 72% of feedlot product occurring in the 5-state surface area [4] of Nebraska (19.8%), Texas (eighteen.9%), Kansas (17.5%), Iowa (9.0%), and Colorado (7.1%). Concentration of feedlots in this surface area is largely driven by access to cereal grains and grain byproducts that predominate the diets of finishing cattle. Other important regions for cattle feeding have adult throughout the country in response to availability of low-cost feedstuffs, particularly byproduct feeds. For example, the Washington-Idaho region is a major site for production and processing of potatoes, fruits, and vegetables as foods for humans. Cattle feeding operations accept developed in response to availability of large quantities of processed food residues in this region, and stand for an important means for disposal of these byproducts, thereby creating additional value to the food chain.
CATTLE BREEDS USED FOR Beefiness Product IN THE The states OF AMERICA
The USA beef herd is very heterogeneous in nature, consisting of more than 80 breeds and crosses thereof, and reflecting the diverseness of environments in which they are produced. According to the most recent study on brood registrations by the National Pedigreed Livestock Council [5], fellow member breed associations with the greatest number of registrations were Angus, Hereford, Simmental, Reddish Angus, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Brangus, Limousin, Beefmaster, Shorthorn, and Brahman. While this list gives some sense of the variety of cattle types in the U.S., near cattle fed for slaughter really are crossbreds, with 60% or more having some degree of Angus influence. Dairy breeds, most notably Holsteins, besides make upwards a substantial portion of USA feedlot cattle, with equally many equally iii to iv million dairy calves being fed in USA feedlots each twelvemonth.
USA Organisation FOR Beefiness PRODUCTION
The USA system of beefiness production is highly segmented, often resulting in several changes of ownership between the time animals are weaned and slaughtered. Seedstock operations primarily produce bulls that are used to service cows in commercial cow-calf operations. The primary product of moo-cow-dogie operations is weaned calves, which are sold to stocker operators, backgrounding lots, or feedlots. Figure 2 illustrates the possible paths that animals may take through the beef production concatenation earlier existence slaughtered. Calves from moo-cow-calf operations generally follow one of ii paths. They tin can be transferred directly to feedlots at or effectually the fourth dimension of weaning, in which example they are referred to as "dogie-feds" that remain in the feedlot for 240 days or more than before existence harvested. Calf-fed may brand up 40% or more of the fed cattle population in the The states. The largest share of the calf population, normally threescore% or more than, is beginning placed into a backgrounding or stocker performance, or a combination thereof, to be grown for a menstruum of time before fattened on high-concentrate diets. These animals are grown generally using forage-based diets and so transferred to feedlots when they are a twelvemonth or more of age, and thus are referred to as "yearlings". Stocker (grazing) and backgrounding (drylot) systems rely heavily on forages equally the predominant component of the nutrition, supplementing protein, energy, vitamins, and minerals as needed to optimize cattle performance. A relatively small proportion of backgrounded cattle are grown at modest rates of gain using limit-feeding programs in which they are fed high-concentrate diets, similar to a high-free energy finishing diet, but in restricted amounts to preclude premature fattening.
Schematic for flow of cattle through the U.S. beef production chain, illustrating direct entry from cow-calf and dairy operations into feedlots (blueish lines) and abattoirs (red lines), or following a growing phase (purple lines) carried out in specialized facilities (dogie ranches, backgrounding operations, or stocker operations).
Male calves from dairies besides constitute an important com ponent of the beef cattle market place. These calves are gathered from dairies at an early on age (normally about three days) and transferred to specialized rearing operations known as dogie ranches. Calves typically are confined to individual stalls to prevent intermingling, as they are highly susceptible to disease at this stage of their lives. Calves are fed a combination of milk replacers, grain, and small amounts of fodder until weaning at 40 to eighty days of age, and so transferred to group housing within the same performance. These animals commonly are sold to feedlots when they reach a weight of approximately 150 to 200 kg.
Cull beef and dairy animals besides contribute to the beef sup ply, and most normally are shipped from seedstock, cow-calf, or dairy operations directly to abattoirs for harvest. A relatively small and variable proportion is sent to feedlots to be fed loftier-energy diets for 50 to 100 days earlier being slaughtered. The number of cull animals that are fattened in feedlots earlier being slaughtered varies essentially from twelvemonth to year, and is largely a function of the relationships between feed costs, beef supply, and beef demand.
Male cattle in the U.s.a. are nearly e'er fed as steers, and abattoirs apply heavy discounts to intact males or males that display advanced secondary sex characteristics. Castration effectively decreases the occurrence of undesirable social behaviors and meat quality characteristics, such equally nighttime, firm, and dry beef. Muscle from steers also contains less connective tissue than that from bulls, and steers deposit more intramuscular fat (marbling) than bulls. Castration tin can occur at various times between birth and after entry into feedlots, with the vast bulk being castrated earlier or near the age of weaning. A relatively small proportion is castrated after entry into feedlots, though this practice is heavily discouraged and meaning discounts are applied to intact feeder cattle due to high morbidity rates in animals that are castrated at an advanced age. In terms of methodology, balderdash calves are most oftentimes castrated surgically or by banding.
Heifers fed in feedlots establish approximately 28% to thirty% of beef supply in the USA [four]. Compared to steers, however, most feedlot heifers are fed intact, and while some are ovariectomized, it is far more common to feed melengestrol acetate (a synthetic course of progesterone) to inhibit estrus behavior.
Market conditions at the fourth dimension of weaning can greatly im pact the age at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Size of the national herd is cyclical in nature, owing to fluctuations in weather (such as extended draught periods), and fluctuating prices. When overall size of the national beef herd is relatively low, fewer animals are bachelor, creating contest between stocker and backgrounding operations and feedlots for supply of cattle. Relationships betwixt prices of grain and forages also can influence age of entry into feedlots. When costs for pasture and harvested forages are low in comparing to grains, producers take incentive to grow cattle earlier placing them into feedlots. By dissimilarity, when grain prices are low relative to prices for forages, a greater proportion of eligible animals may enter the feedlot direct.
Weather also plays a very pregnant role in the historic period at which cattle are placed into feedlots. Ecology temperatures and precipitation patterns apparently impact both quantity and quality of forages produced, so information technology stands to reason that adverse climatic conditions can influence duration of the grazing season, and as a issue the proportion of cattle that are marketed as calves versus every bit yearlings. For instance, several million cattle ordinarily are grazed on modest grain pastures in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas in the fall and winter each year. In the absence of adequate rainfall, poor forage yield may dictate premature termination of the grazing season, in which case cattle are transferred to feedlots to be fed. The aforementioned is true for native grass pastures that are grazed in the leap, summer, and fall. Drought conditions tin can force producers to market cattle early on, as they oftentimes have limited feed reserves. Regardless of cause, the system of merchandising cattle is very dynamic, responding quickly to market atmospheric condition.
Prices paid for slaughter cattle in the U.S. are influenced past age, quality class, yield grade, and weight. The Usa quality grading system takes into account age, every bit determined by bone ossification patterns, color of lean tissue, and the corporeality of intramuscular fat (marbling). Increased intramuscular fat degradation increases grade, and premiums are paid for cattle that have high intramuscular fat content. Yield grade is a measure of fatness that accounts for increases in fatty within the subcutaneous, intermuscular, and peritoneal regions of the carcass. Animals that deposit excesses of fat in these areas generally have poor red meat yield, and prices are discounted accordingly. Weight of carcasses as well is an of import determinant of value, as carcasses that are less than 250 kg or more than 430 kg are subject to substantial discounts. Given the high correlation between intramuscular fat and other fat depots, securing loftier market value requires that cattle be fed long enough to attain sufficient (simply not excessive) trunk fat, produce carcasses ranging in weight from 250 to 430 kg, and do and then at fewer than xxx months of age. Consequently, there are limitations with respect to the ability to shift cattle into different production scenarios. For example, cattle that are heavily influenced by British-breed ancestry often are smaller framed, and therefore benefit from extended growing programs that permit for skeletal growth and muscle deposition before fattening, thereby ensuring that they achieve desired market weights at appropriate fatness. Initiating the feedlot phase besides early in the life of the animals tin can predispose them to premature fattening, low carcass weights, or both. This is especially true for heifers, which comprise a substantial portion of the fed cattle population in the USA. Alternatively, large-framed phenotypes that are typical of breeds from continental Europe can produce carcasses with excessive weights if grown for extended periods of time before finishing in feedlots. These animals are well-suited to the calf-fed feedlot organization in which they are placed into feedlots directly afterwards weaning.
The segmented nature of the beefiness industry in the United states of america is an of import distinction from the vertical integration commonly associated with other meat brute product systems such as pork and poultry. While there is a relative absence of vertical integration in the beef supply concatenation, at that place are increasingly attempts for producers representing the various production segments to marshal vertically with other segments via supply agreements. The value of, or necessity for, vertical alignment is particularly axiomatic with branded beef programs. For example, marketing of some branded beefiness products is based on the premise of no antibiotic or steroidal hormone use throughout the lifetime of the animal, requiring that purveyors have command over production methods employed through each stage of production in club to ensure compliance. This frequently is achieved using supply agreements that reward producers with premiums for producing animals that run into specifications of the branded beef program.
USE OF GROWTH PROMOTING TECHNOLOGIES IN U.S. Beef Product SYSTEMS
Beef producers in the U.s. historically have been very technology driven. Examples of this include strategic supplementation of fodder-based diets to fulfill animate being requirements for protein, free energy, vitamins, or minerals. Several cardinal classes of growth promotants also are used widely, either as feed additives or as hormone-impregnated implants that are inserted beneath the skin of the ears.
Steroidal-based growth implants take been used in the The states for decades, thus making it possible to regain some of the growth-promoting effects of endogenous hormones that are lost equally a result of castration. Implants employ estrogenic (estradiol or zeranol) and androgenic (testosterone or trenbolone acetate) components, or combinations thereof. Steroidal implants stimulate feed intake and protein deposition, and have dramatic touch on on cattle performance and efficiency of feed utilization. Their apply is very widespread, encompassing both growing and finishing phases of production. They are well-nigh heavily used in solitude operations, including backgrounding operations and feedlots. Notable exceptions are branded beefiness programs that disqualify their apply, such every bit natural, organic, or not-hormone treated cattle programs aimed at specific value-added markets.
Similarly, antibiotics have been widely used in United states of america cattle product systems. Ionophore antibiotics, the nearly common of which are monensin and lasalocid, are used widely for beefiness product in the USA, both for command of coccidiosis and for improving feed efficiency. Feed additive forms of tetracyclines and macrolide antibiotics have been used extensively in the United States. Starting in Jan, 2017, the U.s. Food and Drug Administration imposed new regulations that prohibit sub-therapeutic feeding of medically-important antibiotics [half-dozen], which includes oxtetracyline, chlortetracycline, and the macrolide antibody, tylosin. These drugs now are restricted for use only in the handling or prevention of disease, and must exist prescribed by a veterinarian. Changes in the regulatory status of these compounds has spawned an unprecedented interest in culling product methods and enquiry aimed at reducing or eliminating antibiotics from food animal production systems, particularly for compounds that are deemed medically important for human health. Essential oils, minerals, prebiotics, and probiotics are among the many production categories that are now existence evaluated as alternatives to traditional antibiotics for promotion of growth and efficiency.
Beta adrenergic receptor agonists are used extensively in diets of feedlot cattle to stimulate muscle accretion. Beta agonists are non-steroidal, and they stimulate muscle accretion by increasing protein synthesis and decreasing protein catabolism. The beta adrenergic agonist, ractopamine hydrochloride, was approved for use in cattle starting in 2003. Zilpaterol was canonical for employ in the The states in 2008, and though more potent than ractopamine, zilpaterol it is now seldom used due to restrictions imposed by major abattoir companies. Ractopamine is administered to cattle during the terminal 28 to 42 days earlier slaughter, and though the exact number of cattle fed ractopamine is non known, it is used past the vast majority of USA feedlots. A contempo survey of feedlot nutritionists [7] revealed that approximately 85% of feedlots represented in the survey use beta agonists.
Synthetic progestin (melengestrol acetate) is fed to synchro nize estrus in breeding herds, particularly where artificial insemination is used. It is estimated that fewer than 10% of beef females are bred past artificial insemination, so the greatest employ of synthetic progestin is in feedlots, where they are included in the diet to suppress heat in heifers that are fed in confinement for slaughter. Feeding progestin aids in minimizing physical injuries attributable to sexual behaviors in which animals mountain one another, and also improves efficiency of feed utilization. Melengestrol acetate is not approved for employ in male bovines.
THE FEEDLOT SECTOR
The most contempo census of agriculture [three] reported an estimated 26,586 feedlots in the Usa. Of these, approximately 61% have fewer than 100 cattle. Approximately 77% of cattle were produced in feedlots with capacity greater than 1,000 animals. These feedlots exist throughout the U.s.a., simply by far the heaviest concentration of cattle finishing occurs in the Smashing Plains region, which is mostly characterized past a semi-barren, temperate climate that is well-suited to cattle production. Approximately two thirds of The states feedlot cattle product is concentrated within the states of Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Logically, large abattoirs besides are concentrated within this region. Crop production in this geography is heavily dependent on groundwater from the underlying Ogallala aquifer, which is used extensively for irrigation of corn, wheat, sorghum, and other crops.
FEEDLOT FINISHING DIETS
Free energy content of finishing diets, expressed as net energy for proceeds (NE1000), typically ranges from 1.50 to 1.54 Mcal/kg. Consequently, diets of feedlot cattle consist primarily of cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. Corn is past far the predominant cereal grain. Wheat, which mostly is regarded as a human being food crop, frequently is used to displace a portion of corn in feedlot diets. Its employ typically is restricted to sure times of the yr when wheat prices are low in comparison to corn, such as immediately post-obit wheat harvest. Wheat and barley are, however, the predominant grains used by feedlots in the Pacific Northwest. Sorghum is an of import cereal ingather produced in the semi-arid states of Kansas and Texas, and to a lesser extent Oklahoma, Colorado, South Dakota, and Nebraska. Though regarded as being nutritionally junior to corn, it likewise is incorporated into feedlot diets when economic conditions favor its utilise.
Feedlots are opportunistic users of a broad range of past product energy feeds. Cereal grain byproducts have become increasingly important as staples of feedlot cattle diets, peculiarly in the interior of the continental USA where corn and sorghum production prevail. The well-nigh of import of these is distiller's grain, which is a byproduct of fuel ethanol production from cereal grains. Distiller's grains tin be fed either equally moisture or dried co-products, the form of which is dictated by proximity of feedlots to ethanol production facilities. Growth of the fuel ethanol industry between 2000 and 2007 represented an unprecedented period of change for the U.s.a. beefiness industry, during which traditional feedstuffs (i.eastward. grains) reached historically loftier prices while distiller's grains increased dramatically in abundance. This was cause for major shifts in composition of feedlot diets. Wet corn gluten feed (approximately threescore% dry matter), which is derived as a byproduct from the production of corn sweeteners and starches, besides is widely used in the feedlot sector. Distiller's grains, gluten feed, and other byproducts most commonly incorporate between 10% and 40% of the diet dry out matter for feedlot cattle. Big differentials in pricing between grain and grain byproducts occasionally dictate much greater rates of inclusion, with concentrations of byproducts reaching 70% or more of diet dry affair in some circumstances. Other byproducts are used as well, including cull potatoes or potato processing wastes (predominantly in the Pacific Northwest), fruit and vegetable byproducts, byproducts from sugar refining, and co-products derived from milling of wheat and processing of soybeans. Many of these byproduct feeds also comprise intermediate to loftier concentrations of poly peptide, thus making information technology possible to displace all or a portion of the oilseed meals (soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, canola, and others) traditionally used to satisfy protein requirements of cattle. Consequently, dietary protein oftentimes is fed in excess, which has potentially important environmental implications. Byproduct feeds typically contain more phosphorus than the cereal grains that they replace, farther contributing to environmental challenges associated with confined beast feeding operations.
Forages usually found a relatively minor fraction of feedlot diets, and are used primarily to promote digestive wellness. Alfalfa hay and corn silage are the near normally used roughages. Increased reliance on byproduct feeds in recent years has made it economically feasible to employ depression protein roughages in feedlot diets, including corn stalks, wheat straw, and other depression-value crop residues. Provender content of finishing diets typically is in the range of vi% to 12% [7].
Production AND DISPOSITION OF BEEF
The objective of USA feedlots is to produce beef from young cattle (<thirty months of age) with ample tenderness and with relatively high intramuscular fat content. The U.s.a. system of beef quality grading rewards feedlots for product of highly marbled beef, but too discourages over-fattening of cattle through classification of carcasses into one of five yield form categories. Animals that yield carcasses in higher yield class categories (4 or five) generally incur heavy market place penalties. Size of carcasses also is important, and butchery companies more often than not apply heavy price discounts for undersized (<250 kg) or oversized (>430 kg) carcasses.
The beef slaughter manufacture in the USA is heavily concen trated, with only 4 firms accounting for more 80% of the beef slaughter chapters. Most of the beef they procedure is distributed in boxed form, a significant portion of which is exported to other countries. Domestic beefiness production in 2017 was eleven.98 million metric tonnes, approximately 10.half-dozen% (i.26 million tonnes) of which was exported [eight], either as variety meets or as loftier-quality beef products. The largest volume export markets for USA beef in 2017 were Nippon (24.iii%); Mexico (18.eight%); South korea (fourteen.six%); Hong Kong (x.four%), Canada (ix.2%); and Taiwan (iii.v%). Exports were roughly starting time by imports (1.36 million tonnes), with Canada (24.7%), Australia (23.2%); United mexican states (19.ii%), and New Zealand (eighteen.6%) making upward the vast bulk of imported beef (and veal) products.
Per capita beef consumption of beef in the United states in 2017 was 25.8 kg [9], and consumption is expected to be slightly higher or stable through 2027 [ten]. It is estimated that 57% of the beef consumed is in the form of ground products [11]. Imported products, peculiarly from Australia, are of import in fulfilling the increasing demand for footing beefiness products.
Time to come TRENDS IN THE BEEF Industry
Domestic demand for beef products is expected to remain stable. Consequently, export markets are increasingly recognized equally being an important target for increasing demand for USA beef products. OECD/FAO estimates of 1.5% annual increases in demand for meat products through 2026 [10] are cause for optimism among producers. Though it is projected that most of this demand will exist fulfilled by increases in production of poultry products, it is likely that all meat sectors will do good to some caste.
At that place is a growing tendency within the Us for big purveyors of meat products to exert influence on livestock producers, encouraging them to implement production practices that are perceived as being in line with consumer interests. Amongst the major players are butchery companies, wholesalers, grocery chains, the hotel and restaurant industries, and others. Topics such equally sustainability, beast welfare/wellbeing, environmental compatibility, traceability, antimicrobial resistance, apply of exogenous growth promotants, natural or organic production systems, and other areas are becoming increasingly common, and have emerged as central elements in marketing campaigns adopted by many major nutrient companies. This evolution in thinking challenges conventional food animal production systems, and is forcing rapid modify in production practices. As a consequence, the focal points of many enquiry programs across the USA have shifted to encompass these topics.
USA beef producers have a long history of adapting quickly to changing market signals in an effort to capture added value. Branded beef programs, which constitute a form of vertical integration or alignment, are relatively commonplace. Perhaps the best known of these is the Certified Angus Beef programme, which since its inception in 1978 has arguably transformed the USA beefiness industry as a result of substantial premiums paid to cattle producers for producing beef that fulfills certain quality standards. In excess of threescore% of cattle fed in the USA at present have some proportion of Angus ancestry, which is testimony to the success of the programme that is now recognized globally every bit being consequent with quality. Numerous other programs take been spawned in the terminal forty years, with the U.s. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service now listing xc dissimilar federal certification programs for beef, eighty of which were conceived in the year 2000 or afterward. Scores of other non-certified branding programs accept appeared at the consumer level as well, touting features such as omega-3 enrichment of beef; antibiotic free; hormone-free; organic feeding programs; grass-fed programs, and others that are distinguished by the region of production, specific producers, or other features. All are aimed at enhancing value by advertising appealing attributes for which consumers are willing to pay price premiums. As branding programs become more prevalent, vertical alignment between various sectors of the beef manufacture also is increasingly common. A class of symbiosis can develop in which large production units or consortia of producers align themselves with retail outlets, hotels, or big restaurant companies to ensure ongoing demand or to capture market premiums for their products. In turn, the nutrient companies benefit through supply agreements that guarantee availability or pricing of products that are produced to encounter certain standards that tin comprehend beefiness quality, meat composition (as in the instance of omega-three enrichment), environmental compatibility, sustainability, or product practices that exclude antibiotics and(or) growth promotants, and numerous other marketable concepts.
Traceability programs accept been a topic of much discus sion for the past ii decades. This discussion intensified immediately following events in December of 2003 surrounding importation of a cull dairy cow from Canada that was discovered to have been infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Several primal consign markets subsequently were closed to USA beef, which had devastating financial consequences for beef producers and abattoir companies in the USA. Producer organizations are, for the well-nigh role, however, opposed to development of a federally-mandated traceability organization, opting instead for a voluntary system of creature identification and traceability that is market place-driven.
In January of 2017 the USA Nutrient and Drug administration fully enacted revised regulations aimed at decreasing use of medically-of import antibiotics in food animal production systems [6]. Cardinal to the new regulations is the necessity for veterinary oversight of antibiotic utilise. Drugs that previously were available "over the counter" now tin can be used only with the written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Since the regulations took issue, pharmaceutical companies that produce affected drug compounds have cited sharp declines in demand for their products, meat purveyors and retailers have publicly announced timelines for procurement of products produced without antibiotics, and major beefiness producers have announced strategies that volition exist (or have been) implemented to decrease antibiotic use. The "anti" antibiotic motility is thus well underway, and it has given birth to an era of enquiry pertaining to identification of antibiotic alternatives for use in livestock. Much of our own enquiry at Kansas State Academy is devoted to the task of finding alternative strategies for mitigation of digestive disorders or infectious diseases, but without use of antibiotics. Whether equally a result of market place pressures or regulatory changes, it seems inevitable that beefiness product systems of the future are apt to use production practices that prevent use of antibiotics.
Probiotics are condign increasingly prevalent in the beef production chain, just especially feedlot systems. It has been estimated that approximately 60% of feedlot cattle receive some form of probiotic [seven]. Oft these consist of Lactobacillus species, fed alone or in combination with Propionibacterium. Normalization of gastrointestinal tract function and competitive inhibition of food-borne pathogens, such as Due east. coli O157:H7 [12], are the well-nigh commonly cited reasons for their use. More recently, Megasphaera elsdenii, a lactate-utilizing bacteria, has been introduced into the marketplace. Reported benefits include avoidance of ruminal acidosis and the ability to transition more speedily to loftier-concentrate diets [13], as well as improved cattle performance and decreased incidence of disease in young cattle later on arrival in feedlots [14]. Anecdotal evidence from commercial abattoirs has suggested information technology may also subtract fecal shedding of nutrient-borne pathogens, simply this consequence has however to be validated in a controlled inquiry experiment.
Plants extracts as feed additives constitutes another active area of inquiry, with the notion that these compounds may exist useful equally substitutes for conventional antimicrobial drugs as a issue of their antimicrobial activities. Several plant extracts accept been studied in depth, including beta acids of hops [15], menthol [16], eugenol [17], cinnamaldehyde [eighteen], limonene [nineteen], and others, and their bear upon on gut microflora is in some cases well documented. These compounds often emulate the actions of traditional antibiotic drugs, attributable in function to similarities in chemical structure. Similarly, heavy metals, including the trace minerals copper and zinc, accept been exploited for antibiotic-like effects [20], particularly when used in pigs or poultry, but besides in cattle. Zinc is the antimicrobial mineral of choice in cattle due to the relative toxicity of copper, and frequently it is fed at supra-nutritional concentrations to suppress bacteria that cause foot-rot (infectious pododermatitis), or to help in combatting respiratory illness. Numerous studies accept revealed that it is possible to co-select for resistance to antimicrobial drugs when leaner are exposed to plant extracts [21] or high concentrations of heavy metals [22,23], even without exposure to the antimicrobial drugs themselves. Given that the basis for excluding antibiotic drugs from the diets of cattle is to avoid development of antimicrobial resistance in alimentary canal bacteria, information technology would seem that similar caution is warranted in the application of constitute extracts or heavy metals every bit antimicrobials, in spite of the fact that they are not marketed specifically as antibiotics.
The USDA does non maintain official statistics on volumes of antibiotic-free, non-hormone treated, or organic beefiness. In 2012 it was estimated that over four% of retail foods sold in the U.S. were organically produced [24]. Fruits and vegetable led the market in organic sales, while 3% of meat/poultry/fish were estimated to have been produced organically. Co-ordinate to the Organic Trade Association [25], sales of organic meat and poultry surged past 17% in 2016, and total sales were expected to exceed $1 billion dollars for the first time in 2017. Certification of organically produced meats is administered by the USDA, which maintains official standards for organic production practices. Currently, availability of sufficient quantities of certified organic feedstuffs constitutes a major limitation for growth of this segment of the beef industry. Several branding programs certified by the USDA Agronomical Marketing Service specify beef as being "antibiotic costless" or "non-hormone treated". Some of these restrict their definition to a specified production phase, while others reverberate production practices employed throughout the lifetime of the animal. In that location is a sense that demand for this market segment is increasing, but official estimates are not bachelor. Programs for production of cattle without use of hormones, referred to as not-hormone treated cattle, are key to penetrating certain markets, both domestically and internationally. Toll of production generally is higher for any of the specialty programs compared to conventional product systems, and producers must therefore be rewarded accordingly with price premiums.
CONCLUSION
USA beef supply is the product of a multi-segmented manufacture that is consolidating into larger and larger product units, and is increasingly characterized by vertical alignment amid industry segments, as well equally with food wholesalers and retailers and the hotel and restaurant industries. The industry makes use of a broad spectrum of nutritional inputs and animal phenotypes that span a wide range of geographies and climates. The manufacture is closely tied to natural grazing resource, equally well equally cereal grains and cereal grain byproducts. It is highly adaptive, responding rapidly to market signals that reward innovation and alignment with consumer demands. The industry makes extensive use of a broad range of technologies related to feed processing, identity preservations, and growth promotion. Complexity of beef markets is increasing due to extensive branding efforts and development of niche markets, and demand for production of beef representing grass-fed, not-hormone, non-antibiotic, and organic beefiness markets is growing steadily. Maintaining and expanding demand for The states beef probable will necessitate ongoing efforts to develop markets for export, both for variety meats and for high-value cuts of beef.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This is contribution number eighteen-601-J of the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan.
Footnotes
CONFLICT OF Interest
We certify that at that place is no conflict of interest with any fiscal organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. USDA Economic Research Service . Livestock and meat domestic information: Livestock and poultry slaughter. United States Department of Agronomics; c2018. [cited 2018 June i]. Available from: http://www.ers.usda.gov. [Google Scholar]
three. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. c2012 [cited 2016 June 1]. Bachelor from: world wide web.agcensus.usda.gov.
4. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service . Cattle on Feed. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Agricultural Statistics Lath, United states Section of Agriculture (USDA); 2018. Released May 25, 2018. [Google Scholar]
6. Federal Register . Veterinary feed directive: terminal rule. U.S. Section of Health and Human Services; 2015. Available in: 21 CFR Parts 514 and 558 [Docket No. FDA–2010–Due north–0155] RIN 0910-AG95. [Google Scholar]
7. Samuelson KL, Hubbert ME, Galyean ML, Löest CA. Nutritional recommendations of feedlot consulting nutritionists: The 2015 New United mexican states Country and Texas Tech Academy survey. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:2648–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. U.S. Meat Export Federation (USMEF) Total beefiness exports, including diverseness meats [Internet] USMEF; c2018. [cited 2016 June 1]. Available from: www.usmef.org. [Google Scholar]
eleven. Rabobank . Ground beef nation: The issue of changing consumer tastes and preferences on the U.S. cattle industry. Nutrient and Agribusiness Research and Informational. Rabobank International; January, 2014. [Google Scholar]
12. Younts-Dahl SM, Galyean ML, Loneragan GH, Elam NA, Brashears MM. Dietary supplementation with Lactobacillus-Propionibacterium-based direct-fed with microbials and prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 in beef feedlot cattle and on hides at harvest. J Food Prot. 2004;67:889–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Drouillard JS, Henning PH, Meissner HH, Leeuw KJ. Megasphaera elsdenii on the performance of steers adapting to a high-concentrate nutrition, using iii or five transition diets. Due south Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;42:195–9. [Google Scholar]
14. Miller KA, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, Hollis LC, Drouillard JS. Megasphaera elsdenii dosed orally at processing to reduce BRD and ameliorate proceeds in high-risk calves during the receiving period. Bovine Prac. 2013;47:137–43. [Google Scholar]
xv. Flythe Md. The antimicrobial effects of hops (Humulus lupulus L.) on ruminal hyper ammonia-producing leaner. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009;48:712–vii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Valero MV, do Prado RM, Zawadzki F, et al. Propolis and essential oils additives in the diets improved fauna performance and feed efficiency of bulls finished in feedlot. Acta Sci Anim Sci. 2014;36:419–26. [Google Scholar]
17. Yang WZ, Benchaar C, Ametaj BN, Beauchemin KA. Dose response to eugenol supplementation in growing beef cattle: Ruminal fermentation and intestinal digestion. Anim Feed Sci Technol. 2010;158:57–64. [Google Scholar]
18. Yang WZ, Ametaj BN, Benchaar C, He ML, Beauchemin KA. Cinnamaldehyde in feedlot cattle diets: intake, growth performance, carcass characteristics, and claret metabolites. J Anim Sci. 2010;88:1082–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Samii SS, Wallace N, Nagaraja TG, et al. Effects of limonene on ruminal concentrations, fermentation, and lysine deposition in cattle. J Anim Sci. 2016;94:3420–3430. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
twenty. Aarestrup FM, Hasman H. Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from nutrient animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. Vet Microbiol. 2004;100:83–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Aperce CC, Amachawadi R, Van Bibber-Krueger CL, et al. Effects of menthol supplementation in feedlot cattle diets on the fecal prevalence of antimicrobial-resistant Escherichia coli . PLoS ONE. 2016;eleven:e0168983. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Jacob ME, Fox JT, Nagaraja TG, et al. Furnishings of feeding elevated concentrations of copper and zinc on the antimicrobial susceptibilities of fecal bacteria in feedlot cattle. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2010;7:643–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. Amachawadi RG, Scott HM, Aperce CC, et al. Effects of in-feed copper and tylosin supplementations on copper and antimicrobial resistance in fecal enterococci of feedlot cattle. J Appl Microbiol. 2015;118:1287–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences are provided here courtesy of Asian-Australasian Association of Fauna Production Societies (AAAP)
childresspeetuldience72.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6039332/
0 Response to "Hat Is the Cause in the Decline of Beef Production in the Western Part of the United States?"
Post a Comment